You are here:Home»Analysis: For Musharraf, 1973 document wasn’t the constitution
Analysis: For Musharraf, 1973 document wasn’t the constitution
ET: ISLAMABAD: The historic trial of former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has thrown up a number of puzzling constitutional questions – particularly given that this case is the first of its sort in Pakistan.
Among the questions are the arguments being posed by Musharraf’s legal team – and not only in the treason trial itself.
The basis of the treason trial, the Supreme Court’s historic ‘July 31’ (2009) verdict that held Musharraf guilty of unconstitutional acts, has been challenged by the former president and army chief – and his petition, which has been accepted for hearing, has a number of elaborate arguments.
In his review petition against the ‘July 31’ judgment, Musharraf’s legal team has actually challenged the authenticity of the 1973 Constitution that the former army chief is facing trial for abrogating, subverting and suspending.
The argument here is that the promulgation of the document that we know and treat as the Constitution is a mere act of parliament and nothing more.